Giovanni Aldini performs experiments on a human corpse, including passing an electric current through the body. Courtesy of Welcome Collection

An enduring symbol of Halloween, Frankenstein has become an iconic figure of horror since its origins in Mary Shelley’s 1818 novel — a story of a scientist who brings a creature to life from cadaver body parts and electricity. As it turns out, “Frankenstein” was inspired by the real-life science experiments of the early 19th century: electrifying corpses, bodily transplantation and spontaneous generation, the idea that living things can come from lifeless matter. 

One of the principle ideas that made up the creation of Frankenstein was “animal electricity” termed by Luigi Galvani, a physician and physicist in the late 1700s. Galvani found through his experiments on frogs that muscles could be electrically stimulated — for instance, a leg kicks when a nerve is touched with a scalpel. He hypothesized that this animal electricity is an innate vital force in living tissue and is different from the electricity we see in other forms such as in lightning or static. 

Galvani’s nephew, Giovanni Aldini, took these experiments a step further and conducted electrical experiments on the dead bodies of animals including sheep, dogs and oxen. Not only that, but he experimented on recently executed convicts and did so in front of crowds around Europe. As he passed a current through the corpse’s head, limbs moved and muscles contorted. Severed heads were even used for these experiments, causing their eyes to open or their faces to grimace — truly the stuff of nightmares. From witnessing this, many believed that people could be brought back from the dead.

Spontaneous generation, the idea that life could be created from nonliving things, was not an outlandish idea at the time. Many people, including scientists, believed in the concept  and used it to explain instances such as cheese being left in a dark corner producing mice or the presence of maggots on rotting meat. 

So, is there any truth to these theories? As it turns out, Galvani was indeed correct in his idea that an electrical stimulus can cause muscle contraction. However, his hypothesis that this reaction is due to an innate vital force within all living tissues is inaccurate. Similarly, while Aldini’s experiments on corpses certainly took place, the belief that these bodies were being brought back to life was, of course, untrue. In actuality, muscles in deceased organisms remain electrically excitable as long as the  necessary chemicals for contractions are still present. However, sustained contraction isn’t possible; electrical stimulation will only cause brief, random movements. In short, shocking a corpse would not result in it sitting up and making any voluntary movements.

With the modern technology we have today, would the creation of Frankenstein be scientifically possible? The answer is no, not in the way that Mary Shelley depicted — we know that electricity has nothing to do with bringing the dead back to life. But what about transplantation? 

Although dismembering body parts was a common practice among scientists at the time of Shelley’s “Frankenstein,” the idea of organ and bodily transplantation was still very young. However, other Frankenstein-like experiments have been conducted by more modern scientists including Vladimir Demikhov, a pioneer of organ transplantation. One of his most famous experiments involved attaching the upper body of a small dog to the neck of a larger one. The two dogs were successfully able to eat and drink separately, but his longest subjects only survived for up to a month. Despite the questionable ethics of his experiments, Demikhov paved the way for organ transplantation in modern medicine. 

With the medical advancements that we have today, it may be possible to do procedures like head transplantation, the grafting of a human head onto another body. Sergio Canavero, a controversial Italian neurosurgeon, argues that a head transplant is feasible and claims he will be able to perform it successfully in the near future.

However, many would agree that creating a being like Frankenstein is highly unethical, and it would be difficult to do so under today’s medical laws. Although we now view Frankenstein as a morbidly fantastical story, people at the time truly believed in the possibility of creating life through electricity, and Shelley’s novel was a warning of the potential dangers of making that a reality. 

“Frankenstein” serves as a cautionary tale on the consequences of scientific advancement, which may feel more relevant than ever as we break through new ground regarding artificial intelligence and genetic engineering. Where ethical considerations become murky in the science world, “Frankenstein” can present us a reminder of the risks of unchecked ambition and scientific advancement.

A version of this article appeared on p.7 of the Oct. 31, 2024 edition of the Daily Nexus.